Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV21788, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21788    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 74

Harmik Abrahamian v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Joi Calloway to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff Harmik Abrahamian (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant). The complaint alleges retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and failure to allow inspection of personnel files.

            On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff served a notice for Joi Calloway to appear at deposition and produce documents. The deposition was set for January 5, 2024

            On December 27, 2023, Defendant served objections to the deposition notice and document requests.

            On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition and production of documents.

            On January 8, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order that would prevent Plaintiff from taking the deposition.

            On February 6, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The service of a deposition notice . . . is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff wishes to compel Joi Calloway’s appearance at deposition and production of documents. The court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for the testimony and documents sought.

            However, Defendant argues the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot because Defendant has agreed to produce the deponent. (Papania Decl., ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. H.) But Defendant has not provided available deposition dates or expressly agreed to produce the documents. Thus, the motion is not moot. Defendant also claims Plaintiff cannot bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), because Defendant served timely, valid objections to the deposition notice on December 13, 2023. (Soleymani Decl., ¶ 28; Ex. 25.) The court finds Defendant’s boilerplate objections to the deposition notice and document requests improper, though. (Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Defendant also objected that Plaintiff “unilaterally selected” the deposition date without sufficiently meeting and conferring. In addition, Defendant objected on the grounds of unavailability. But Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to schedule the deposition with Defendant’s counsel, who never provided available dates. (Soleymani Decl., ¶¶ 11-14, 20-21, 27; Ex. 9; Ex. 12, pp. 1-7.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is proper.

            Given the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff seeks sanctions as well. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) The court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification because its objections to the deposition were unavailing. Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has provided a breakdown of work performed. (Soleymani Decl., ¶¶ 63-65.)

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant shall produce Joi Calloway for deposition and produce documents responsive to Category Nos. 1-15 by April 10, 2024. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $4,810 in attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions by April 10, 2024.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.

Harmik Abrahamian v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Shady Ellaham to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff Harmik Abrahamian (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant). The complaint alleges retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and failure to allow inspection of personnel files.

            On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff served a notice for Shady Ellaham to appear at deposition and produce documents. The deposition was set for December 21, 2023.

            On December 13, 2023, Defendant served objections to the deposition notice and document requests.

            On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition and production of documents.

            On January 8, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order that would prevent Plaintiff from taking the deposition.

            On February 6, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The service of a deposition notice . . . is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff wishes to compel Shady Ellaham’s appearance at deposition and production of documents. The court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for the testimony and documents sought.

            However, Defendant argues the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot because Defendant has agreed to produce the deponent. (Papania Decl., ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. H.) But Defendant has not provided available deposition dates or expressly agreed to produce the documents. Thus, the motion is not moot. Defendant also claims Plaintiff cannot bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), because Defendant served timely, valid objections to the deposition notice on December 13, 2023. (Soleymani Decl., ¶ 28; Ex. 21.) The court finds Defendant’s boilerplate objections to the deposition notice and document requests improper, though. (Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Defendant also objected that Plaintiff “unilaterally selected” the deposition date without sufficiently meeting and conferring. In addition, Defendant objected on the grounds of unavailability. But Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to schedule the deposition with Defendant’s counsel, who never provided available dates. (Soleymani Decl., ¶¶ 11-14, 20-21, 27; Ex. 9; Ex. 12, pp. 1-7.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is proper.

            Given the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff seeks sanctions as well. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) The court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification because its objections to the deposition were unavailing. Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has provided a breakdown of work performed. (Soleymani Decl., ¶¶ 63-65.)

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant shall produce Shady Ellaham for deposition and produce documents responsive to Category Nos. 1-15 by April 10, 2024. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $4,810 in attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions by April 10, 2024.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.